Warp wrote:
 >
>   And you are still showing the wrong attitude: You are expecting others
> to edit your code and to interpret which parts are relevant and which aren't.

No, I'm not.

I gave you the relevant piece of code in the first place, as well as a 
description of exactly what I was doing, and what the problem was. I 
don't think I could have been more clear. You and others complained 
about having to set up a test scene which might be different from mine, 
and realizing that this was a valid objection, I cut down the scene that 
had the problem to a viable test scene, and posted that.

It requires no editing, unless you wish to take out the version line 
(which is easily done, and obvious), or the global settings, which I 
seriously doubt are causing the "bug", and would not prevent the scene 
from rendering anyway. You wanted something that could be rendered with 
no thought or effort on your part, and I delivered.

>   I simply said that it's polite to see the trouble *yourself* in making
> the scene as easy to use as possible, not expecting other people to do it
> for you.

The only thing I "expect" anyone to do is to tell me whether it's a bug 
when two opposite normals are averaged together and produce a third, 
clearly visible normal instead of cancelling each other out, and if not, 
why not. The only reason I provided the code in the first place was so 
you could see exactly what I'm doing, and thereby confirm that the 
problem really exists and it's not just some incredibly stupid oversight 
on my part.

If you can't be bothered to try to help, then DON'T REPLY. Waste your 
free time on something else and let someone else take care of it. But 
don't sit here and lecture me over such trivial shit.

Of the four people who have replied to this thread (not counting me), 
only one has even TRIED to offer some useful explanation for my finding. 
So, again, thank you Kari for trying to help. The rest of you ought to 
be ashamed of yourselves.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message